Re: XO memory size

2009-03-02 Thread Derek Zhou
On Thursday 26 February 2009 05:09:27 pm James Cameron wrote: Something is wrong with my olpc in either the xserver or hardware. For other non-drawing tasks its speed seems to be reasonable. Yes, something is wrong. Have you another XO you can test? Now I narrowed down my X related

Re: XO memory size

2009-03-02 Thread James Cameron
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:01:41AM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: Now I narrowed down my X related slowdown to one culprit, and I still cannot believe it: It's not different versions of debxo or hardware or nand vs usb or jffs2 vs ext3, It is the window manager I am using: windowMaker. I've been

Re: XO memory size

2009-03-01 Thread James Cameron
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:05:51PM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: On Saturday 28 February 2009 05:51:40 pm James Cameron wrote: 3, every once in a while (10 mins or so) there is a message in console like: JFFS2 warning: jffs2_sum_write_sumnode: Not enough space for summary, padsize=-60

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-28 Thread James Cameron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:24:19PM -0800, da...@lang.hm wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, James Cameron wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:50:58PM -0800, da...@lang.hm wrote: since the effect seems to be related to the amount of text on the screen at any one time that needs to be scrolled, it may be

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-28 Thread James Cameron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:48:22PM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: On Thursday 26 February 2009 05:09:27 pm James Cameron wrote: Something is wrong with my olpc in either the xserver or hardware. For other non-drawing tasks its speed seems to be reasonable. Yes, something is wrong. Have you

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-28 Thread James Cameron
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 12:51:40PM +1100, James Cameron wrote: I *think* a save-nand to USB disk will work, but I don't know if a copy-nand from it will work. I'll give it a go. Verified. save-nand succeeds. copy-nand results in an unbootable system, on power-up OFW prompts with ok, and if

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-28 Thread Derek Zhou
On Saturday 28 February 2009 05:51:40 pm James Cameron wrote: 3, every once in a while (10 mins or so) there is a message in console like: JFFS2 warning: jffs2_sum_write_sumnode: Not enough space for summary, padsize=-60 That matches a known problem. The JFFS2 filesystem is in a

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread James Cameron
After generating an xorg.conf using Xorg -configure, restarting X, results were 3.696s, 3.700s, 3.607s. After adding 'Option FBSize 8388608', restarting X, results were 3.673s, 3.636s, 3.658s. The generated xorg.conf is attached. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Perhaps there is something

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread Derek Zhou
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:52:11 pm James Cameron wrote: debxo 0.5 KDE variant booted from USB, installed rxvt, started rxvt -fn 12x24, maximised, took a sample log (dmesg) which was 523 lines, appended it many times to generate a file 7322 lines long, then used: time cat file

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread Derek Zhou
On Thursday 26 February 2009 12:02:46 am James Cameron wrote: After generating an xorg.conf using Xorg -configure, restarting X, results were 3.696s, 3.700s, 3.607s. After adding 'Option FBSize 8388608', restarting X, results were 3.673s, 3.636s, 3.658s. The generated xorg.conf is

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:19, Derek Zhou agonyz...@comcast.net wrote: On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:52:11 pm James Cameron wrote: debxo 0.5 KDE variant booted from USB, installed rxvt, started rxvt -fn 12x24, maximised, took a sample log (dmesg) which was 523 lines, appended it many times

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread david
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Derek Zhou wrote: On Thursday 26 February 2009 12:02:46 am James Cameron wrote: After generating an xorg.conf using Xorg -configure, restarting X, results were 3.696s, 3.700s, 3.607s. After adding 'Option FBSize 8388608', restarting X, results were 3.673s, 3.636s,

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread James Cameron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:16:24AM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: On Thursday 26 February 2009 12:02:46 am James Cameron wrote: I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Perhaps there is something else affecting your system. Agreed. Now instead of a logfile which is different from computer to

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread James Cameron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:18:46AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: As a wild guess, may be related to jffs2? It may be garbage collecting at that time or some other stuff. Agreed, that is a possibility. I'm avoiding that by installing afresh, not filling up the free space, doing nothing else on the

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread James Cameron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:50:58PM -0800, da...@lang.hm wrote: since the effect seems to be related to the amount of text on the screen at any one time that needs to be scrolled, it may be that the larger fonts of debxo 0.5 are preventing you from seeing the effect. Good point, but no, rxvt

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread david
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, James Cameron wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:50:58PM -0800, da...@lang.hm wrote: since the effect seems to be related to the amount of text on the screen at any one time that needs to be scrolled, it may be that the larger fonts of debxo 0.5 are preventing you from

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-26 Thread Derek Zhou
On Thursday 26 February 2009 05:09:27 pm James Cameron wrote: Something is wrong with my olpc in either the xserver or hardware. For other non-drawing tasks its speed seems to be reasonable. Yes, something is wrong. Have you another XO you can test? I installed latest

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-25 Thread quozl
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:33:59PM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: Another thing is X drawing is very slow; however if I add: Option FBSize 8388608 to xorg.conf, it becomes visibly faster. I've tried to reproduce this, and failed. Please give me a copy of your xorg.conf file. What I did was install

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-25 Thread Derek Zhou
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 02:11:08 am qu...@laptop.org wrote: I tried placing just the Option line you specified in an empty xorg.conf, but X would not start, complaining of syntax error in the file. You have to make valid xorg.conf file and add it to the Device section. The easiest way to

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-25 Thread Derek Zhou
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 02:11:08 am qu...@laptop.org wrote: Then I installed the Debian x11-apps package, and did some performance timings, using time x11perf -time 1 -repeat 1 -all, with different configurations, to try to reproduce your observation; By the way, I don't think timing the

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-25 Thread James Cameron
debxo 0.5 KDE variant booted from USB, installed rxvt, started rxvt -fn 12x24, maximised, took a sample log (dmesg) which was 523 lines, appended it many times to generate a file 7322 lines long, then used: time cat file Results were 3.569s, 3.569s, 3.569s. Very predictable, so I tried

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-25 Thread James Cameron
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:42:52PM -0800, Derek Zhou wrote: I don't think timing the run time of x11perf is a usable benchmark. Agreed. -- James Cameronmailto:qu...@us.netrek.org http://quozl.netrek.org/ ___ Devel mailing list

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-24 Thread Derek Zhou
On Monday 23 February 2009 04:48:52 pm qu...@laptop.org wrote: Sounds interesting. Which version of debxo? 0.4 Show us the output of /proc/meminfo. de...@debxo:~$ cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 221776 kB MemFree:174732 kB Buffers: 0 kB Cached: 19192 kB

XO memory size

2009-02-23 Thread Derek Zhou
Hi all, I am running debxo on a XO I got from 2008 G1G1. I just noticed that the memory size is only 221776K according to /proc/meminfo. I know that there is 16M used as video memory, so there should be 256M-16M = 240M available to linux, right? I search around and see some people has about

Re: XO memory size

2009-02-23 Thread quozl
Sounds interesting. Which version of debxo? Show us the output of /proc/meminfo. Another thing is X drawing is very slow; however if I add: Option FBSize 8388608 to xorg.conf, it becomes visibly faster. Why is limiting the video ram to half the size make it faster? Good question, I'll